Mr. Speaker, I have heard my colleagues, and I have respect for all my colleagues' views. The purpose of having a Parliament is to listen to each other. I have heard some of them criticizing that we call it modernization. However, having lived across the world, the airline industry, not only in Canada, is subject to pressure from the international sector. We know the aerospace sector is becoming more and more globalized around the world. We talked about the case of the United States having a number of airlines filing for chapter 11.

I was in Europe when Swissair went bankrupt. I saw first hand how the airline industry had to reshape itself in order to succeed. Today we are giving the means and the tools to Air Canada to compete globally. I think it is the aspiration of every member in the House to see Air Canada be one of the most respected and cherished airlines around the world, one of the most efficient, one that translates our Canadian values.

When I used to live abroad, every Canadian I knew, and many international travellers, were very proud to embark on an Air Canada flight. I am very pleased to see how over the years Air Canada has been able to compete with some of the Asian, Middle Eastern, and U.S. carriers.

What we are talking about today is in the best interests of the workers and of Canada. That is exactly what we will do during our term in government. We will always work for the best interests of the workers of our country.

Mr. Speaker, it is curious to hear the member talk about the best interests of workers when, explicitly, the purpose of this legislation is to change the law to allow Air Canada to no longer employ workers in Canada for the purpose of their maintenance.

We have talked on this side of the House about other measures that the government could take to enhance the competitiveness of the aerospace sector, things like increasing the foreign ownership limit and tying airport improvements fees to specific projects. We have listed them before. I will not list all of them again. However, could the member comment on the many different options for increasing the competitiveness of the sector, which are not only for increasing the competitiveness of companies but also for benefiting workers? Why is the member not looking at some of these other options rather than simply supporting the bill, which provides a windfall gain to one particular company?

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the member's speeches. It is by debate that we can come to the best solution.

To the point of his question, there is an assumption on the other side of the House that the bill would inevitably lead to less employment in Canada in the maintenance and refurbishment of airplanes. I am not at all convinced of that. I have given an example of my own riding where we have created a centre of excellence and we refurbish planes coming from the United States. Trois-Rivières is not exactly one of the major urban centres around the world for refurbishing planes. People fly from across the United States to get their planes refurbished and serviced in our community.

I do not understand why, by necessity, the member would assume that a bill like this would necessarily lead to less employment. If we make the right investment in excellence, we will not only attract more work here but we will create and continue to expand our aerospace industry.

Everyone in the House realizes what the aerospace industry has done for our country, even in small non-urban communities like mine. We have benefited greatly by having a centre of excellence which provides highly paid jobs and R and D. It also makes a town like mine proud. The workers in the companies that are based in my own community, who service planes from all over the world, would tell us that the best way to retain jobs is to strive for excellence.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House, especially to talk again about Bill C-10. I have risen a couple of times on this important legislation.

It is curious that the government is picking to run through this so quickly. It is legislation that the Liberals continue to say is for the best interest of Air Canada, to keep Air Canada competitive. They talk about the official opposition and its war on the aerospace industry, because we oppose the bill being rushed through.

The Liberals talk about their aerospace strategy but, really, the floor on the number of jobs in each province that Bill C-10 would impact is one, or it guarantees is one. It does not specify the nature of work that has to be done, but only that line maintenance could and probably does apply. Therefore, it is interesting that they talk about their aerospace strategy.

It should also be noted that the Liberals talk a lot about the centres of excellence that Air Canada will be building. It is critical for members of the House and for those Canadians who are listening to understand that if the law is changed today, there will be no incentive for Air Canada to remain at the table to negotiate with the Governments of Quebec and Manitoba, whether for this legislation or for the centres of excellence and the jobs associated with those. However, the government rides in on its white horse, saving the day for the aerospace industry.

The deputy premier of Manitoba was equally clear recently when she said:

The federal government's approach to Bill C-10 simply put is jumping the gun. Bill C-10 is being rushed through the process before the necessary specific investments and binding commitments by the federal government and Air Canada have been secured.

It is interesting that the member for Winnipeg North said that the Conservative Party did nothing. Again, the Liberals have ridden in on their white horse and are saving the day for the aerospace industry.

It is interesting again that, if their contention to saving the day is resolving litigation between Air Canada, Quebec, and Manitoba, then is Parliament stepping in and effectively siding with Air Canada in a dispute, with the legislation before us, after Quebec and Manitoba were in the court fighting Air Canada? Is it sound public policy? I guess we know what lengths the Liberal Party will go to help out its friends.

I sat through every debate. Obviously, with my background, I am keenly interested in this. Again, there has been a great healthy debate from all sides, but the language the government side is using is that this would give Air Canada a competitive advantage on an ever-changing global environment.

I think we mentioned this before, and I will go into some detail. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport did her best to talk about airline, airport, and aviation economics. Therefore, I would remind the House again about my background with that and some of the challenges that we face, given everything Air Canada has been granted over time.

I should probably have started off by saying that I am absolutely a fan of Air Canada. We have relatives and friends who are employed by Air Canada. However, this is about keeping and protecting jobs in Canada, and nothing else.

The government would like us and other Canadians to think that this is an attack on the aerospace sector, the 170,000 aerospace jobs throughout Canada, because fundamentally we are against Bill C-10 and what it would open up in shipping jobs overseas.

The proposed amendments to the 1988 Air Canada Public Participation Act means that the jobs of 3,000 Canadians who provide aircraft maintenance would and could be affected. Under the amendment, Canada would still be required to do some maintenance work in each of the three provinces, but as I said earlier, it is one job. It could be one engine overhaul or one oil job, and that is it.

Air Canada is allowed to change the type or volume of any or all of those activities in each of those provinces. As well, it is also allowed to adjust the level of employment in each and all of those areas. It will be free to dictate how many people will be employed by these centres, and what work they will do.

We continue to ask the question, why the rush? Today, for the very first time, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport mentioned Mirabel. We also heard that there will be other legislation in place that guarantees that these jobs will not be lost.

Why the rush? Why can we not have an honest debate? Why can we not have an honest discussion? The government continues to use the excuse that the legislation will make Air Canada more competitive. We all agree that it is time Air Canada becomes a private sector company that is not supported by taxpayers, that is competitive on the global stage, and it is.

We also agree that all of Canada's aviation, aerospace, and airlines should receive the same type of treatment. We should create an environment where Canada, as a whole, can compete, can be competitive, regardless of whether it is Air Canada or Pacific Coastal. We want a level playing field, and it does not have to come at the expense of high-quality, well-paying Canadian jobs.

I spent 20 years in aviation. I am aware, first-hand, of the challenges that our Canadian aviation sector faces, airport, airline, and regulatory impediments.

Air Canada, in 1988, inherited 109 aircraft. It came hat-in-hand to the Government of Canada and asked for some support, some help. It is the largest airline in the country, and it is an important international player in the sector. It has 28,000 employees. It goes to 180 destinations worldwide on five continents: 60 Canadian, 49 U.S., 72 international.

It is because of the government support of Air Canada over the years, and the taxpayer support over the years, that Air Canada is a global, international player, that it is one of the top carriers in the world. Today, Air Canada is the largest tenant at nearly every major airport in this country, with the exception of Calgary and Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport, which we have debated before. Air Canada has significant influence over each airport's operations and access to the best landing slots in all of our major airports. It has that competitive advantage.

We welcomed the original intent of the Air Canada Public Participation Act when it was introduced in 1988, but let us remember why that act was put in place. The act put in place clear conditions to ensure that all of the support Air Canada received from the Government of Canada to turn it into a profitable crown corporation was not lost. It was to protect Canadian taxpayers.

There were four conditions. Air Canada would be subject to the Official Languages Act. It would maintain its headquarters in Montreal. Seventy-five per cent of its voting shares had to be held by Canadians, and finally, Air Canada had to maintain operational and overhaul centres in the city of Winnipeg, the Montreal urban community, and the city of Mississauga.

Given all of those recommendations, all of those parts of that legislation, the government picked one to change, to overhaul. Even the Canada transportation review released earlier this year, in February, the Emerson report, cited 60 recommendations, and it picked one.

Again, why the rush? While it is exactly unclear what level of benefit this legislative change will give Air Canada, one thing is clear and that is the intended change will make it possible for the carrier to move thousands of jobs from Canada to other jurisdictions. Today, the government informed the House that it is considering legislation that will protect those jobs.

Why now? Why, at this point, is the government bringing that up? It could have brought it up earlier on.

If we are talking about giving further competitive advantages to one of our national carriers, why do we not look at the industry as a whole? If Air Canada, after being afforded all of these competitive advantages previously and the protection of successive governments, is still having difficulties remaining competitive, it might be a sign that our national aviation industry needs a little overhauling.

Let me talk about some of the challenges that our aviation industry is facing as a whole. Air transport is a critical economic and social infrastructure. It provides access to trade and investment; connects people to jobs, friends, and family; and delivers vital goods and services to remote areas, such as medevac and critical life support. Geography, population size, and the environmental conditions in Canada increase the operational costs of air transport compared to other jurisdictions. While being a distinct advantage for some, it is a disadvantage for other carriers in Canada.

The Canadian passenger market is relatively mature and we have had some significant gains over the years. We are a market of about 122 million to 125 million emplaned and deplaned passengers. It pales in comparison to the emerging and developing markets around the world. In some measure, it is due to the very same policies developed for the industrial and economic environment of the 1990s. Simply put, the very same policies that were designed to protect our industry are now the ones hindering it.

Most of Canada's domestic air services are provided by Air Canada and WestJet nationally. We have a small number of regional and local air carriers that help serve the underserved market. Some of these small tier-three airlines are aligned with our national carriers and they allow for better customer service and connectivity. In the 1990s, Canada saw the Southwest Airlines low-cost model introduced by WestJet. This came at a time when consumers and communities were held hostage by predatory pricing by Canada's two major carriers at the time, Canadian and Air Canada.

Smaller communities throughout Canada and Canada's north are served by regional local carriers. Canada's main charter carriers are Transat and Sunwing, and those are focused primarily on seasonal vacation destinations. WestJet's entrance into the Canadian market in the early 1990s created excitement by offering low-cost travel. Actually, it allowed Canadians to experience air travel, some for the very first time. There was a time when air travel was only for the elite. It was considered glamourous and accessible only to those who could afford it. At one time, the cost of a round-trip ticket into my riding of Cariboo—Prince George from Vancouver was in the thousands of dollars; now it is in the hundreds. With the entrance of low-cost carriers and competition, air travel became easily afforded, and this stimulated market growth.

Both Air Canada and WestJet have now introduced lower costs, low fare, or charter subsidiaries such as Rouge and Encore. This has stimulated the growth in a number of markets. As we speak, there are currently a number of start-up low-cost carriers at various stages of financing that are expected to enter the market in the short term. This will ultimately lead to a price competition with existing carriers. For a time, our national carriers will react with greater seat sales and maybe even a few new routes. However, ultimately as the past will dictate, only new entrants with deep pockets will survive.

All this is to say that maybe it is time to reconsider policies that served us well when the Canadian aviation industry needed protection to flourish, but now impair our competitiveness. Of course, such protectionism comes at a cost that is largely borne by Canadian consumers who pay relatively high airfares and by a Canadian travel and tourism sector, which, also due to higher costs, has been losing market share for over a decade, unable to compete or go head to head with the big boys because the deck is stacked against them. Airline start-ups and failures are frequent, and ultimately the ones that suffer the most are the communities and ultimately the consumer.

I want to talk a bit about airports. The Conference Board of Canada estimates that Canadian airports in 2012 accounted for $4.3 billion in real GDP, but had a total economic footprint of $12 billion. Generating almost 63,000 jobs and contributing over $3 billion in federal and regional taxes, Canada's airports are vital to the success of the Canadian economy. They are key gateways for inbound and outbound tourism, business, and personal travel. Domestic, commerce, and international trade are all predicated on access to our Canadian public.

Canada is blessed with a strategic geographic location. We are at the crossroads of great circle routes between Asia, Europe, and the Americas. We have this competitive advantage that we as a nation have never fully taken advantage of. Our competition has successfully negated this competitive advantage with integrated policies and programs aimed at stimulating inbound tourism and facilitating connecting traffic through its global hubs, essentially overstepping, or to use an aviation term, overflying Canada.

Canada's airports face increasingly aggressive competition, competition from countries that have recognized the importance of air transportation as a driver of economic growth. Our neighbouring U.S. counterparts market directly to and easily access a large portion of Canada's U.S. transborder and international travel market. Our cargoes are shipped to U.S. ports and airports and then trucked across the line.

Canadian airports also compete with each other for the allocation of limited carrier capacity. Our regional airports and communities are oftentimes pitted against one another in competition for airline service. As mentioned during the Billy Bishop debate, Canadian airports also face challenging times, along with changing aircraft capacity, and a continued focus on environmental issues, such as noise and residential encroachment.

With the introduction of the national airports policy, a new framework was defined in relation to the federal government's role in aviation. This happened in the nineties. NAS airports, composed of the 26 airports across Canada that were deemed as critical links for our country, were deemed essential to Canada's air transport system. The airports served 94% of the air traffic in Canada. They were transferred under lease to the airport authorities, and in some cases, the municipalities. The infrastructure at many of these airports, if not all, was antiquated and in need of attention.

Through the transfer negotiations, reinvestment monies were given with the expectation that these airports were to do everything in their power to be self-sufficient. Airports have very few revenue-generation streams. With the transfer of airports and the new-found independence also came the realization that user-pay systems were needed. Airport improvement fees became the norm, and today we have airports that are incredible examples of the NAS transfer. We also have airports that have struggled to remain competitive and viable.

There are a number of things that we should be talking about with respect to our aviation policies and aerospace industry. For example, airport rents can represent up to 30% of airport operating budgets, far more than what would be expected in dividends and income tax from private, for-profit airports, such as those in Europe. Canada collects $300 million from airports across Canada, and they reinvest $50 million. Our NAV and security fees are among the highest in the industry. If we really want to become competitive, we need to fully integrate parts of our local transportation system. We need to look at aligning our foreign trade policy and our free trade policy with our air policy. We need to look at our tourism policies and align them with our trade policies.

As we speak, we have carriers and airports that are struggling. The current government wants to give one carrier a competitive advantage. It continues to stand before us and say that it will give Air Canada a competitive advantage. If it wants to show true leadership, it could align our policies and promotions. It could stimulate air travel to and from Canada. It could look holistically at our tourism, aviation, and trade policies and bring them all into alignment so that carriers, regardless of whether it is Air Canada, WestJet, or Pacific Coastal, to name a few, or the dozens of Canadian air carriers, can remain competitive.

This is low-hanging fruit, and the government is rushing it to look after its Liberal friends when really what it could be doing is taking a step back and re-evaluating Canada's aviation system as a whole. This is not an attack on the aerospace sector, as the government would like Canadians to believe, this is giving one company, one organization, a competitive advantage over others.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to my colleague across the way, on two fronts: one, the very strong arguments he made that legislation can in fact protect good-paying jobs; two, that government interaction can generate growth in the employment sector.

However, what I would like him to comment or reflect upon is that the previous Conservative government had carriage of this file. It came to the conclusion—I think I am paraphrasing it correctly—that effectively it agreed with Air Canada that there was no provision to legislate there. It concluded that the legislation was weak and that it was not going to intervene. Effectively, it decided to do nothing.

Was doing nothing on this file preferable to securing the jobs that would be secured through Bill C-14? Was the previous government's position of doing nothing on this file but agreeing with Air Canada on it having no obligation to do any work in any one of these major cities in fact the responsible direction to go, or is this position an advancement, by the fact that it protects real jobs in real cities?

Mr. Speaker, again, I am part of this Parliament. The Liberals like to point fingers and say, “It was this government that didn't do this, and these guys didn't do this”. The reality is that they are the ones who have been campaigning on open and transparent ways. Instead, what they are doing is muddying the waters and colluding with third parties. They are ensuring that their friends are looked after.

It was our government that legislated the back-to-work legislation that protected Air Canada in 2012. It was our government that told Air Canada that this was before the courts and that it should be fighting its battles to ensure this was done the right way, that we did not want to interfere with the courts.

Mr. Speaker, many of the members who spoke today mentioned that they were lawyers. I am not a lawyer. However, I am very uncomfortable with the idea of voting in favour of a bill that legalizes job losses that are illegal today.

Our colleague talked about his experience in the aerospace sector, and his remarks speak to that.

I would like to know if the member is as uncomfortable as I am about voting in favour of a bill that legalizes job losses that are currently illegal.

Mr. Speaker, I was leery about the government before, and I am increasingly leery as we go. The government likes to tell us, “Just trust us. Just hang in there. You'll get it to committee and we'll have the discussion. We'll have a collaborative effort.” All we have seen with the government is that it gets its way, enforces its way, then it gets it to committee and forces the majority anyway.

The reality is that if the Liberals do not like what is being said, they grab their toys and move to the next sandbox. It is like they do not have to listen to what we have to say.

The reality is that the government continues to say, “Just trust us. Trust us.” Well, Canadians are learning what it means to trust it. It is broken promises. Nothing about the government is open and transparent. As a matter of fact, all it is is doing are backroom deals and looking after their friends.

I do not trust the government. I am with the hon. member from across the way. There is more and more ambiguity with the government, and more fuzziness. I think we should all be afraid.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to take this opportunity to correct the member for Spadina—Fort York, who wants to say that the previous government did nothing on this and nothing on that. Of course, our previous government made substantial investments in the aerospace sector. One example is the $900 million for the strategic aerospace defence initiative. It was a significant investment, administrated through Industry Canada, that is supporting the aerospace sector.

The current government is not helping the aerospace sector. In fact, it is going in the opposite direction. It is changing the rules in the middle of the game to allow jobs to go out of the country.

I wonder if the member would comment further upon some of the significant changes we made, not just for the aerospace sector, but for all businesses and all workers. It made Canada a more competitive environment to create jobs by lowering business taxes, by increasing our trading relationships.

We did so much for the aerospace sector, for every sector, and now the government is selling out workers by changing rules in the middle of the game.

Mr. Speaker, coming from the aviation sector, the Conservative government invested in our ports and airports.

The Conservatives recognized the importance of trade. They recognized the importance of our supply chain and our transportation networks, and the significant investments, whether it was the Asia-Pacific gateway and the marketing program, marketing our western provinces and Canada as a whole into one of the fastest growing markets in the world, or was it the introduction of 46 trade agreement from the previous government?

Our Conservative government got it. Conservatives saw the importance of trade. They saw the importance of connecting our goods and our people to the world. They got it. They understood it. The Liberal government is not understanding it, and they are never focused.

Mr. Speaker, it is an odd experience in this place. I have a new friend in the member for Cariboo—Prince George. We have actually found mutual friends. We are friends.

However, he was not here in the 41st Parliament. I do not like Bill C-10, but it is hard to sit and listen to accolades for a previous government that so disrespected Parliament and showed such contempt for democracy, and that in a daily way did violence to the things that I hold dear.

I just needed to stand and make the comment that even as I oppose Bill C-10, I continue to rejoice that the people I see across the way are trying to do better.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what to say to that. As with my hon. colleague from the Green Party, the leader of the Green Party, I have deep respect for all members of this House. Indeed, I came here with an open mind. I came here with the hope that we would be able to work collaboratively and we would be able to make a difference.

However, what we have seen with the government and the folks across the way is indeed going back to the previous Liberal government, that it is not open and transparent, but more about looking after their friends and not Canadians.

It is disappointing. I look across the way every day. I saw so much hope, and all I see is despair.

Mr. Speaker, although I appreciate the comments of my honourable friend from Cariboo—Prince George, I certainly do not feel any despair.

I listened very attentively to a lot of the different arguments that have been made, including those from my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who I very much admire in terms of the way that he portrays arguments.

I understand the concern expressed about security and jobs and 100% legal certainty being somewhat whittled. That I do understand, and I understand that concern.

The hon. member was talking about creating parity, creating a level playing field, and how this law takes away a level playing field. That I completely do not understand because regardless of what we think about this law, and we can reasonably agree to differ, this law does create a level playing field. There is no other airline company in Canada that has these obligations put on it, except for Air Canada.

The Air Canada Public Participation Act requires that maintenance jobs be in one certain part of the country, or in one location. Other private airlines, because Air Canada is now a private airline, do not have that obligation. Yes, there is the argument that 28 years ago when Air Canada was first established, became privatized, we imposed obligations because we gave them stock, etc., but right now that stock has been completely depreciated.

I would like to understand, on the argument of not creating a level playing field, how does the hon. member argue that this creates a distinction between Air Canada and the other airlines by changing the law?

Every day, when we are in aviation, when we are either meeting with a carrier that is not Air Canada or meeting with an airport that deals with Air Canada, we understand both the importance, but also the breadth of Air Canada's reach.

I spoke with members of the government off-line about this and spoke to them about their language. They are using this language about making Air Canada competitive.

The Canada Transportation Act review was issued in February. There were 60 recommendations for Air Canada, and the government chose to pick one of them. If the Liberals wanted to have a huge impact and be the white knight on the horse, they could have taken a step back, took some time and actually looked at all of our aviation policies and trade policies, aligning that to make all of us, to make Canada as a whole, competitive.

Before we go to resuming debate and the hon. member for Central Nova, I will let him know that there are only five minutes remaining in the usual time for government orders. I will have to interrupt him at approximately 6:30, but he can get started. He will have the remaining time, of course, in his ten minutes, or twenty minutes, as he may choose, when the House next returns to debate.

Mr. Speaker, I was planning on sharing my time with my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle. However, today we will not necessarily even get to the end of my own remarks.

Today we are debating an important economic bill in a high-value strategic industry. I was hoping to provide a snapshot of the historical context in which we find ourselves, the role of government in promoting this important industry, and then turn to the specific changes that Bill C-10 will make and the benefits it would have, not only for Air Canada, but for the aerospace sector and for Canadians at large.

An appropriate starting point is that the privatization of Air Canada in the 1980s, which has been canvassed well in the House, created a series of conditions that sought to retain the benefits that this airline presented within our own country's borders.

Fast forwarding to 2012, the conditions led in part to the bankruptcy of a major supplier when Aveos went bankrupt. This had a serious and significant impact for 2,600 workers. One thing I can say, from my experience on the committee and listening to debate in the House, is that every member of the House, from each party, takes seriously the importance of jobs to Canadians and to their families. Where we have a conceptual divide is how we tackle that problem.

When the government had the opportunity to deal with the final condition that was put on Air Canada when the Aveos litigation was suspended, we determined it was important to take action. This requirement put Air Canada in a narrow box and required that it conduct its maintenance operations in three specific urban centres, namely, the Montreal urban community, Winnipeg, and Mississauga.

Before I get too far down that path, it is important that we talk about the role of government in creating economic growth in this sector.

Some members of the House take the view that legislating how many jobs an industry player should have in different locations is a wise economic policy. However, in my view, the role of the government is to create economic conditions that would allow these important engines to create growth and employ Canadians. That is what Bill C-10 seeks to do.

This sector is extraordinarily important to Canada. Over 180,000 individuals are employed in the aerospace sector in Canada. There are 33,000 of them who are employed by Air Canada or its subsidiaries.

Mr. Speaker, I see that you are giving me the two-minute warning, so perhaps I will cut to the chase.

Bill C-10 will level the playing field. My friend from Mount Royal indicated that there are no other airlines that are bound by the same conditions as in Canada. In our deliberations on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, we asked whether there were any in the world. None of the witnesses, including Transport Canada, who looked into it, could find a single example of an industry player who was hamstrung by the same economic conditions that we have placed on Air Canada. The playing field is not level, and Bill C-10 seeks to correct that issue.

By making Air Canada more competitive, our potentially most important player in this strategic sector will have the flexibility to allocate its resources so it can grow. When it has the freedom to choose its own economic policy, it can make investments into the sector that helped grow the economy for all of us. A perfect example is the recent purchase of the C Series jets. Air Canada has committed to 45 jets, with an option to buy 30 more. This will not only create jobs in the maintenance sector, through the centres of excellence that we referred to, but will also provide a boost to the manufacturing side of the aerospace industry, which represents 73% of the GDP contributed in this industry. Now 73% sounds like a lot, because it is, and in this sector there is $29 billion at stake annually; seventy-three per cent of that is on the manufacturing side.

If we allow Air Canada to be competitive, it will invest in the industry, which will have benefits not just in Montreal, Winnipeg, and Mississauga, but in different parts of the country. My own riding has the Halifax International Airport, and we have a small but important aerospace presence. Companies like Pratt and Whitney would love to be part of the manufacturing of these C Series jets. These jets are not only important because Air Canada is purchasing them, but with an anchor client in place, other clients come onboard, as can be evidenced by the recent purchase by Delta.

I see you are prepared to rise, Mr. Speaker. I take it that I am at the end of my time.

The hon. member for Central Nova will have another five minutes for his remarks when the House next takes debate on this particular question and, of course, the usual five minutes for questions and comments.

Mr. Speaker, the response by the Minister of National Defence to my question of February 19, regarding the short-sighted decision by his government to withdraw Canadian air support that was being provided to our soldiers by CF-18 fighter jets in the international war against terrorism raised more questions than answers.

The minister confirmed that, with the withdrawal of Canadian air support for our ground troops, it would be essential to acquire a portable, anti-armour capability, a capability the minister is now claiming is necessary when air support was in place, let alone when it is no longer being provided.

More disturbing was the admission that CF-18 air support had been withdrawn before this defensive system, a portable, anti-armour capability, was in place to protect our soldiers.

While the minister was quick to criticize our Conservative government by saying anti-armour defences were not provided when they should have been in addition to air cover, how then can the Minister of National Defence justify pulling air defences when the anti-armour capability that he has identified as being necessary is not in place?

He cannot have it both ways. Either that capability is necessary or it is not.

This changing story reminds me of the attempt by certain government apologists in the media to now blame Afghanistan roadside bomb casualties on Brian Mulroney, when it was Jean Chrétien who cancelled the Sea King helicopter replacement contract. Under his watch, he went ahead with the disposal of Canada's medium-lift Chinook helicopters.

The EH-101 replacement helicopter could be reconfigured for troop transport.

The Chrétien Liberals knew they were cancelling the troop transport replacement helicopters. They should have stopped the sale of the Chinooks until a replacement was purchased, or not sent Canadian troops into a battle zone without the proper equipment and air support.

The Chrétien Liberals' decision to cancel the Sea King replacement helicopter was a cynical political act to get elected on the backs of the women and men who serve their country in uniform, just like the decision to cancel air support today.

I remember the names of the pilots who died when their ancient Sea King Helicopter crashed.

The assessment to retire the CH-147 Chinook helicopter, in Canadian service from 1974 to the early 1990s, by the government of Brian Mulroney was done on the basis of having a contract being signed to replace the Sea King helicopter.

While the sale was negotiated prior to the 1993 federal election, the Dutch government did not start to take possession of our old Chinook helicopters prior to December 28, 1995.

The sale to dispose of Canada's only military medium-lift helicopter was completed by the Liberal government. This was done with the full knowledge that the Sea King replacement had been cancelled and that it would create a huge equipment gap in our military, similar to what is happening today with the federal government decision to so-call delay, postpone, or more likely, cancel equipment for our military earmarked by our Conservative government.

The Liberals immediately moved after that election to break the helicopter replacement contract, so why did they not break the contract to sell our old Chinooks to the Netherlands? Breaking contracts is not a new idea invented by the leader of the third party, even if it is payback for lost union votes in the London area this past election.

Mr. Chrétien gave him the idea of breaking the LAV contract with the Saudis years before when the Liberals broke the helicopter contract.

In Afghanistan, the difference it would have made would have been in the lives of Canadian soldiers.

Even the former lieutenant general, now the MP for Orléans, talked about the need for transport helicopters to reduce casualties in Afghanistan. “We have to have helicopters to move our kids around the battlefield so they don't suffer unnecessary casualties”, he said.

Likewise, the integrated soldier system project, the ISSP, is much more than a glorified cell phone, as it was mischaracterized by the media.

Sensor suites and systems currently under development represent an increased understanding to efficiently monitor a soldier's status as well as environmental conditions.

If survivability of the soldier of the future is as important as I believe it is, then Canada should not be cancelling or delaying the ISSP any more than it should have cancelled air cover for our troops fighting the international war against terrorism.

John McKayLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I must admit I was having difficulty following the hon. member when she was bouncing around from Chrétien-cancelled helicopters to integrated soldier systems to F-18s to the new mission in Afghanistan. Therefore, let me see if we can try to bring this down to some level of coherence as to what the question or issue is that the member seems to be interested in.

In 2002, there was a friendly fire incident. That was a tragedy. There is no question that was a tragedy. However, to try to link that to the decision to withdraw the F-18s some 14 years later seems to be a stretch beyond imagination.

If we do not actually accept that the minister has the best interests of the troops in mind, surely the hon. member thinks that the chief of the defence staff has the best interests of the troops in mind. I would say it is quite clear that both the minister and the CDS are at one on this, that the safety and security of our troops are foremost. They are the number one priority. There is no linkage between the withdrawal of the CF-18s and the re-profiling of the mission, which is not in the context of trying to keep our troops safe but also simultaneously trying to keep their position so that it is effective.

We are very fortunate to have a world-class military. It has an exceptional reputation among our coalition partners. Therefore, when the mission was re-profiled, our coalition partners welcomed the idea. The hon. member seems not to understand that there is something in the order of 200 airplanes in that theatre, all of which are interoperable, all of which know where our troops are at any given time, whether they are Canadian, American, or other coalition partner troops. Therefore, to try to somehow or other suggest that our troops are less safe because our own airplanes are no longer in theatre is disingenuous to the extreme.

We have put together an integrated and comprehensive whole-of-government strategy tailored to what is an evolving situation, a strategy that increases our train, advise, and assist mission, and provides expanded intelligence capability. The objective is to train and empower our Iraqi security forces so that they will be able to counter the scourge of ISIL.

On February 15, the chief of the defence staff gave direction to cease air strike operations as part of Operation Impact. The timing was planned with our coalition partners to ensure that there was no capability gap and, may I say, no security gap.

Mr. Speaker, what the member opposite does not seem to appreciate is that, when we do not have our own air assets in the air, we cannot do a mission and redirect.

As the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke—a riding that includes Garrison Petawawa, the largest army base in Canada—I am concerned with the health and well-being of each and every member of the Canadian Armed Forces. Garrison Petawawa is the proud home of the Canadian Special Operations Regiment, which is currently providing boots on the ground in the Middle East.

My role as a member of the loyal opposition is to hold the government accountable, a job I take very seriously. I want all soldiers to believe that the government will do everything possible to make sure they come home safely. Let us not disappoint them.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the hon. member, in her closing remarks, is not suggesting that the minister and the chief of the defence staff do not have forefront in their minds the safety and security of our troops, because that is what I interpreted from her remarks.

The priority and safety of our troops, our world-class military, is of foremost concern to everyone in the defence department, the minister's office, and the government. Therefore, to try to make the linkage that the withdrawal of our CF-18s somehow or other puts our troops at greater risk is disingenuous and misleading.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this House to revisit a question I asked a few months ago about the tragic situation that at the time was unfolding in our riding, and about the suicide crisis in Pimicikamak Cree Nation, otherwise known as Cross Lake, in northern Manitoba.

Over the course of a few weeks at the end of 2015 and then in early 2016, six people took their lives in Cross Lake, and there were more than 100 suicide attempts that took place in the last number of weeks, as well.

As I pointed out in this House, this did not just happen. The epidemic has everything to do with our history of colonialism, of racist policies, including the sustained underfunding of first nations. The results are truly horrifying. Half of first nation children in Canada live in poverty. In Manitoba, 62% of indigenous children live below the poverty line.

What do those conditions of poverty look like?

Almost one-third of Manitoba first nations live in reserve homes in need of major repair—the second-highest percentage in the country. In terms of health, we know that residents have a higher mortality and a higher incidence and prevalence of diabetes. Also we know, of course, that suicide rates on first nations are double those of other communities.

When it comes to education, we know that the debilitating two per cent cap imposed by the Liberal government in the nineties has meant an underfunding of education, including underfunding of infrastructure, like schools, including the lack of funds for sponsorship for post-secondary education, and of course, this has contributed to the educational outcomes of young people growing up on first nations.

We also know that the underfunding has resulted in a lack of recreation services, services that we would take for granted in non-first nation communities: access to recreation centres; access to hockey rinks; access to a simple drop-in centre and some basic programming, so that young people have somewhere healthy where they can go and be with each other.

I want to echo in this chamber, once again, the words of 17-year-old Amber Muskego from Cross Lake, who had said during the suicide crisis that there is nothing for young people to do in her community.

As I pointed out, this is the face of crushing poverty and growing inequality in Canada.

That is why first nations such as the Pimicikamak Cree Nation, and I would say the other 40 first nations that I have the honour of representing in northern Manitoba, are asking for support in terms of education, recreation, and jobs, so that young people like those in Cross Lake and in other first nations do not have to reach that point, that point of hopelessness that we hope no youth will reach.

The question really here is this. Will the government listen to Amber and step up to support young people in Pimicikamak Cree Nation and first nations across the country?

I want to particularly point to the fact that, in this last budget, the government did not fulfill its original commitment to challenging the education underfunding. It also did not follow the Human Rights Tribunal directive to adequately fund child welfare services on first nations.

We know that there was no commitment made in the budget to Jordan's principle, which has everything to do with ensuring that young people on first nations have equitable access to health services.

Then, sadly, the details are still scant when it comes to addressing the underfunding of infrastructure on first nations. We know that the housing monies are inadequate, given the needs in communities. We also know that there is a reference to social infrastructure, including recreation. While that is an encouraging commitment, we have yet to see how, in fact, that fund will be rolled out.

The question is this. So we do not lose any lives like those lives that have been lost in Cross Lake, what is the government truly prepared to do to make a tangible difference in the lives of young people in Cross Lake and in first nations across our country?

Yvonne JonesLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the question posed by the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski. I thank her for her advocacy and collaboration around these particular efforts. I know that she is very sincere in the work that she does. I know that because we have crossed paths and we deal with many similar issues as they relate to first nations and Inuit communities across Canada.

My heart goes out to the families and communities that have lost loved ones to suicide. I know the great personal sacrifice that many communities and families endure. Suicide has touched many of us personally in the House and has exacted a very heavy toll on many of the families and communities that we represent. We join the communities in their grief and share with them our deepest condolences.

I know that currently the government is working with indigenous communities and leadership to provide supports for those who are grieving. Suicidal behaviour is a risk at any age and is most often the tragic consequence of a complex array of factors which, when taken together, can weaken even the strongest and healthiest people, as I have personally witnessed.

Mental health issues, such as depression, substance abuse, social and family factors, bullying or relationship issues, a lack of income, lack of housing and proper social supports all play a role in contributing to a decline in mental health. They are vital to a sense of hope, wanting to go on, and seeing oneself contributing in society.

Suicide rates among first nations and Inuit youth are among the highest in Canada. We are committed to taking action and have been taking action in the few months that we have formed government to prevent further deaths in communities like Pimicikamak and other indigenous communities across Canada. It is vital to Canadians' shared success that we work collaboratively on a nation-to-nation basis to ensure better social and economic outcomes for indigenous people. We believe that more must be done as a vital element of reconciliation, and I share that with the member.

In addition, the minister will work with the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development to launch consultations with the provinces and territories and indigenous peoples on a national early learning and child care framework as a first step toward delivering affordable, high-quality, flexible, and fully inclusive child care. A key component of combatting this ongoing tragedy is working in partnership with indigenous communities to promote and, in fact, ensure that people have a secure personal cultural identity. We have made significant investments in health research to ensure that we can provide for proper healthy promotion, prevention, and resilience.

In addition, we are committed to implementing Jordan's principle. We have ensured that there are investments across the board of government to meet that challenge and the goal that we have established. We are already negotiating with the provinces and territories around a new health accord, which will include investments in mental health.

In addition, we will invest more than $8.4 billion over the next five years to meet many of the issues around poverty that exist in first nations, Inuit, and Métis communities, ensuring that we are investing in housing, recreation, shelters, and infrastructure that are needed in many of these communities. We are looking at how the cost of living is impacting people. We are looking at how the lack of programs and investments over the last decade is impacting people.

We are committed to ensuring that change and progress happen. The cost of doing nothing remains too high. We are all connected to this issue and committed to making progress for first nations, Inuit, and Métis people in the country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I certainly recognize her commitment to this issue.

While I am heartened to hear about the government's commitment as was outlined in the budget, what concerns me is truly the lack of action. I have been in touch with a number of communities in our north. I have been visiting communities since the budget was tabled, and people do not know how the commitments in the budget are actually going to roll out. Nobody has contacted them in terms of addressing the underfunding of education, in terms of housing, in terms of recreation. This is simply not okay, because whether it is Amber Muskego, whether it is young people across the country, they have said that action is really what is going to make the difference here.

Many members on the other side are very proud to talk about their commitment to reconciliation. Reconciliation requires action. I am proud of the position that we have taken in the NDP to hold the government to account, and to make it very clear that in order to work with first nations to prevent suicide, we are going to need to see real action from the government as soon as possible.